https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339432 Input tax credit under the Delhi VAT Act, 2004 could not be denied to a purchasing dealer merely because the selling dealers' registrations were cancelled or their transactions were oubted, where there was no collusion and no express statutory disqualification. Section 9(1) grants credit to a qualifying dealer, while Section 9(2) is a limited exception that permits denial only on the specified grounds. The later insertion of clause (g) in Section 9(2), effective from 1 April 2010, was not treated as a mere clarification of an existing restriction. The statutory scheme also did not impose on the purchaser a duty to verify the seller's tax payment, and Section 28 supports confidentiality in that regard. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339432 Input tax credit under the Delhi VAT Act, 2004 could not be denied to a purchasing dealer merely because the selling dealers' registrations were cancelled or their transactions were oubted, where there was no collusion and no express statutory disqualification. Section 9(1) grants credit to a qualifying dealer, while Section 9(2) is a limited exception that permits denial only on the specified grounds. The later insertion of clause (g) in Section 9(2), effective from 1 April 2010, was not treated as a mere clarification of an existing restriction. The statutory scheme also did not impose on the purchaser a duty to verify the seller's tax payment, and Section 28 supports confidentiality in that regard. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339432